Monday, 22 September 2008

Go disrupt the evil Dr Zuker...

Personally I don't think this is strong enough as the way homosexuals removed their mental illness categorization was by direct action and disruption. This man is evil and deserves to be thrown out of England.

Do what you can...


Demonstration against Ken Zucker (the man who proposes reparative therapy for gender variant kids)

October 1st, 8.30am, The Royal Society of Medicine, 1 Wimpole Street,London W1G 0AE


The demo is organised in cooperation with the Metropolitan Police and will take place outside the Royal Society of Medicine

(Just behind Debenhams/House of Fraser, Nearest tubes are Bond Street and Oxford Circus)

Please come if you can.

Natacha Kennedy (Official Organiser)

This is an important demonstration and it is vital that you attend if you are able. As it is on a Wednesday at 8.30am there are quite a few people who would like to come but are unable to make it because of work commitments.

It is important to come for two reasons;

1.to show opposition to Ken Zucker's 'treatments' being used on children and

2.to oppose the nature of the Royal Society of Medicine's highly political conference on trans identified adolescents.

Ken Zucker is a psychologist (not a psychiatrist) at the Clarke Institute in Toronto. He promotes his so-called "reparative therapy" which is little more than torture for gender variant(GV) children and trans identified adolescents. It is suggested by research that around 75% of born male bodied children who manifest GV behaviour (sissy boys) do not become trans adults, but it is worth noting that this research has never considered born female bodied GV children (tomboys). Yet he promotes his 'therapy' for all GV children and trans identified adolescents.

Ken Zucker also proposes to use "reparative therapy" on these young people, regardless of their parents' wish or the young person's legal right to access this treatment.

In the UK, a young person (YP) has a variety of ways in which they can request treatment and give full consent to it; with their parent's approval, and if required, regardless of their parents' wishes i.e. when the YP is 16 (under the Family law Act) or even younger when they are 'Gillick Competent 'which requires far greater competence than is every required of an adult accessing treatment, i.e. they understand the nature of the treatment, what it does, what it doesn't do, all the side effects and other consequences, and the health risks they are taking.

For the 25% who will become trans identified (and the unknown proportion of the rest who are actually suppressing it or hiding it as a result of bullying, parental pressure etc.), the results of treatments like Zucker's can be catastrophic.

Victims of this therapy are left traumatised for a very long time afterwards. They experience frequent feelings of depression and suicidal tendencies. This is not surprising since this treatment involves constantly telling these YPs that they are
wrong, everything they do, are or feel is bad, and clothes, toys and other possessions relating to their preferred gender are taken away and they are punished for engaging in activities which reflect their own true identities. They are also rewarded for any behaviour which reflects the gender their parents wish them to be.

This is just crude psychological and emotional bullying and exertion of power over those unable to defend themselves.

This treatment is not just wrong, but has no basis in psychological theory and is considered by many psychologists and psychiatrists to be the equivalent of voodoo or unproven 'alternative' medicine.

It is also wrong because it is a response to the wishes of the many homo & trans phobic parents who demand their child is 'normal', rather than to the needs of the YP. Although parental wishes may be taken into account, when a YP is under 16, the YP is the patient and any doctor is bound by ethics to consider the YP's needs as paramount. We do not believe this is happening in Zucker's clinic.

It would also appear that this therapy is related to some of the ideas of the extreme Christian right-wing political lobby in the United States which has sponsored this type of therapy to "treat" homosexuality.

This therapy is designed to pander to parents who would like to have a 'normal' child. Children are, however, not a fashion accessory.

We believe that this therapy violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Secondly, the Royal Society of Medicine describes itself as an "apolitical organisation", yet this conference seems to have been set up by its organisers in the most political way possible. By inviting Zucker to contribute regarding his 'therapies' and not allowing any representation from anyone to oppose him this is clearly a political move. Even Mermaids, the organisation for trans children & young people,and their parents has not been allowed to contribute.

Given Zucker's highly controversial place on the DSM-5 committee on GID this alone is
an extremely political act.

The only likely opposition is from Professor Peggy Cohen-Kettenis, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam but she is on the same DSM-5 committee as Zucker - can they really give a fair view point between them. And there is no legal overview given, Professor of Law, at Manchester Metropolitan University; Dr Stephen Whittle from Press for Change who has written on the legal issues (see *** below) has not been invited.

Furthermore, the welcome address is being given by Dr John Scadding,Dean of the Royal Society of Medicine and Professor Philip Steer,President Elect, Section of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, RSM is reviewing questions of prognosis and long term follow up.

However it appears to go further than this. The conference seems to have been set up to push a UK-based treatment protocol for GV children and trans identified adolescents.

This protocol will not involve the use of hormone blockers to delay the onset of puberty.

Puberty can not only be extremely distressing for some GV YP's particularly those that grow up to be trans adults. Furthermore, as legal research has shown the refusal to consider this treatment means that trans adolescents develop secondary sexual characteristics, such as beard or breast growth that ultimately lead to major health interventions, in the future, which could have been avoided.

In this sense it seems that it is also particularly politically motivated and as such as large presence outside is vital to make our feelings known and to distribute leaflets to delegates to make sure they understand the other side of the story.

It is rather ironic, but Professor Melissa Hines, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Cambridge will be contributing information on Endocrine influences. She is the wife of Professor Richard Green, who has himself been so perturbed by this conference that he has arranged an alternative conference; Conference on Medical Care for Gender Variant Teenagers, on September 28th at Imperial College in London, to challenge it. For further details go to:

http://www.gendertrust.org.uk/n2/temp/conf.html

Demonstration against Ken Zucker (the man who proposes reparative therapy for gender variant kids)

October 1st, 8.30am, The Royal Society of Medicine, 1 Wimpole Street,London W1G 0AE

Please Join Us

Natacha Kennedy

Sunday, 21 September 2008

How to get surgery from the NHS and avoid the charlatan gender psychiatrists.

The problem with the National Health Service is that it is at best designed to accommodate the gender confused or appease the transvestite.

For the true transsexual it is a a no go area unless of course you are happy to play the game handing your destiny over to someone else and enduring a long slow difficult and frustrating process.

If you’ve read this blog you’ll realise I advocate going private for everything if you can afford it. If you can then the cheapest and quickest option is to go to the Private London Gender Clinic run By Dr Richard Curtis after you have changed your name and gender presentation. You will get a joint care (with your GP)prescription for hormone therapy and once you have your gender recognition certificate you can insist on surgery by the NHS if you want to.

Most National Health Service Primary Care Trusts will try to frustrate you as they are in the cost avoidance game. The National Health Service long ago ceased to be a caring service and some of the most bigoted bureaucrats can be found within the Department of Health.

They are of course not above the law so this is the case you make to get treatment when you have a gender recognition certificate:

1.1 Treatment Option Unlawful

The proposed treatment for psychiatric assessment at Charing Cross Hospital gender clinic prior to GRS is considered unlawful under the Mental Capacity Act 2004 and the amended Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

1.1.1 Mental Capacity Act 2004


The Mental Capacity Act 2005 covers this issue. A person cannot be forced to accept a treatment if the patient’s mental disorder does not justify detention in hospital, or the patient needs treatment only for a physical illness or disability. The successful treatment of gender dysphoria requires a surgical intervention (GRS) so must relate to a physical disability. Psychiatric interventions have never been successful on their own in addressing gender dysphoria.

Alternatively, it cannot be claimed that a psychiatric evaluation is required to have GRS. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 affirms that a person must be assumed to have the capacity to make a decision about their life/treatment unless there is evidence that they do not have such capacity. That a decision may appear to be foolish or unwise to someone, such as the PCT, is not evidence of this.

Any DH or PCT policy that contradicts the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is unlawful and invalid.

1.1.2 Sex Discrimination Act

The decision to refuse treatment at the preferred hospital appears to be due, at least in part, to sex discrimination by reason of gender reassignment contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 as modified by The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (Amendment) Regulations 2008 No 963.
1.1.2.1 Gender Certificate

XXX is legally female and has a gender certificate and a female birth certificate.

The requirement for XXX to attend psychological evaluation will require duplication of the criteria for which she was issued with a gender certificate. To require this is sex discrimination by reason of gender reassignment contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 as modified by The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (Amendment) Regulations 2008 No 963.

Most patients in XXX’s peer group are presenting as males considering future GRS at the beginning of their treatment and are legally male. In these circumstances, a psychological assessment may be appropriate. However, this situation where a patient is legally female at the time of their referral for GRS represents a new circumstance that has not been addressed.

1.1.2.2 Illogical Arguments


The arguments presented by the PCT are so illogical that it is difficult to see that there is a coherent argument behind them and if pursued one would be led to conclude that it is an attempt to justify prejudice. Such dogmatic prejudice would be unlawful discrimination against XXX by reason of her gender reassignment.

The PCT has proposed that XXX be referred for psychiatric assessment at Charing Cross when her GP referred her to have GRS with Mr ZZZ at Sussex Nuffield. A psychiatric assessment as part of the treatment is to lead the patient into making a decision as to whether they wish to make a permanent change of gender to their preferred gender. XXX has already made such a commitment and has acquired a gender certificate and a female birth certificate. This makes any psychiatric assessment redundant as well as illogical.

Finally, XXX appears to meet the PCT’s criteria for GRS as described in section 2.3.
1.1.2.3 Mental Health

From April 2008 Primary Care Trusts are expected to offer a free choice of where to go for hospital treatment. Exceptions are for mental health services and maternity services. Patients referred by their GP for hospital treatment can now choose to be treated in any hospital anywhere in the country, which meets the standards set by the NHS. The DH document Choice of Hospital: Guidance for PCTs, NHS Trusts and SHAs on offering patients choice of where they are treated published in July 2003 states that all patients who have to wait more than 6 months for a surgical intervention should be offered choice. Further, the document states: “The Department of Health does not believe there is any justification for the blanket exclusion of any category of patient.” Individual PCTs were to have implemented surgery choice with up to 5 hospitals by 2004.

Typical waiting times after a referral to an NHS Gender Identity Clinic have been typically 6 months but there is pressure to reduce this to 18 weeks as required for psychiatric services (NHS funding processes and waiting times for adult service-users: Trans wellbeing and healthcare GIRES for DH Feb 2008). Referral for surgery is a separate referral process and again an 18 week response time applies.
This can be contrasted with the current time to wait for surgery with Mr ZZZ at Sussex Nuffield of 13 weeks. Thus the referral for surgery via a referral to Charing Cross GIC will lead to a delay in surgery. This delay is unfavourable treatment and is thus sex discrimination by reason of gender reassignment.

2 MRSA Rates

No specific rates are available for Charing Cross so we have to infer from PCT rates. The DH published statistics for Imperial College Healthcare was for 967 reported episodes of MRSA at hospitals in the group, including Charing Cross, in the period April 2001 to Mar 2008. This represents an average rate of 2.68 MRSA episodes per 10,000 bed days with the minimum half year rate of 1.46.
Applying these rates to the 433 GRC patients, for an average 5 bed days (Mr UUU 3, Mr ZZZ 7), at Charing Cross the MSRA incidence would, for example, generate 0.32 to 0.58 occurrences. Therefore, it is not surprising that there were no reported incidents of MRSA in the Charing Cross GRC patients but there remains a significant risk of infection. This compares unfavourably with the Sussex Nuffield Hospital rate of zero episodes of MRSA.

2.1.1 Surgeon

This is not the case. Mr ZZZ has advised XXX, in an email, that Charing Cross hospital does not allow external selection of the surgeon for this procedure. Upon patient referral, either Mr ZZZ or his colleague, Mr UUU, is assigned to perform the procedure by hospital administration.

2.1.2 Specialised Service and the Choice agenda

“Choose & Book” – Patient’s Choice of Hospital and Booked Appointment Policy Framework for Choice and Booking at the Point of Referral (DH ref 3467 23 August 2004) identifies the exclusions referred to above in paragraph 19:
“19. Choice of hospital may not be appropriate for all services. The services that will not be required to offer a choice of 4-5 hospitals (or suitable alternative providers) by December 2005 are:”
...
· Services where other choices are more likely to improve the patient experience:
o maternity services
o mental health”

The GP referral was for GRS which although more commonly following a mental health element is a surgical procedure and does not fall within either excluded category. GRS has a near 100% success rate in relieving gender dysphoria.

Gender Identity Disorder is recognised as a specialised service in Specialised Mental Health Services (adult) - Definition No 22 (DH 2nd edition). This states that:
“The programme requires patients to complete a minimum of two years of real life tests before they are accepted for transgender surgery. For men seeking female identity, this includes exclusive adoption of female dress, a female name, and full-time employment as a female. Initial treatment is with hormone therapy, usually for a period of two years. The principal reasons for patients leaving the programme are psychiatric disorders, personality disorder and dysmorphophobia. The drop out rate is less than 1%. After this period of real life testing and treatment with hormone therapy (which averages 3-4 years) a proportion of the patients still in the programme are assessed as appropriate for surgical therapy. Patients will not be accepted for surgery unless at least 2 specialist consultant psychiatrists support the referral. Once the surgical option has been agreed, the patient is referred to one of the very few surgical units that provide this highly specialised service.”

XXX meets all these criteria and will have achieved “K” years living as a woman so there is no requirement for further psychiatric assessment.

The PCT is insisting that the referral should be to Charing Cross GIC for a psychiatric assessment. Presumably this is the PCT’s justification for pretending that a surgical intervention might fall under mental health services.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (see legal section below) covers this issue. A person cannot be forced to accept a treatment if the patient’s mental disorder does not justify detention in hospital, or the patient needs treatment only for a physical illness or disability. The successful treatment of gender dysphoria requires a surgical intervention (GRS) so this relates to a physical disability. Psychiatric interventions have never been successful on their own.

Alternatively, it cannot be claimed that a psychiatric evaluation is required to have GRS. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 affirms that a person must be assumed to have the capacity to make a decision about their life/treatment unless there is evidence that they do not have such capacity. That a decision may appear to be foolish or unwise to someone (the PCT?) is not evidence of this. The PCT have not offered any such evidence.

Any DH or PCT policy that contradicts the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is unlawful and invalid.

From April 2008 patient choice of hospital should be implemented by GP referral, as in this case.

2.1.3 Quality of Clinical Care:

2.1.3.1 Is the intervention offered effective? Evidence to be put forward to support the intervention.

The request was to use Mr ZZZ, one of 2 surgeons at Charing Cross, who also works at Nuffield Sussex. The other surgeon, Mr UUU, uses a different technique.
GRS is well established as being nearly 100% effective in relieving gender dysphoria and was not disputed by the PCT.

2.1.3.2 Is the intervention being undertaken by a known provider with an established reputation for treatment i.e. is the provider competent or there other potential providers?
Mr ZZZ is one of two surgeons at Charing Cross that would undertake surgery via the PCT preferred treatment pathway. Therefore there is no dispute that he is competent.

2.1.4 Quality of Life:

2.1.4.1 What is the patient’s quality of life? E.g. is the condition life threatening/is the patient in permanent chronic pain?
The patient’s gender dysphoria represents a disabling condition that can be remedied by GRS.

2.1.5 Health Gain:

2.1.5.1 What is the extent of the health gain?

There is no difference in the health gain from GRS with either path. However, psychiatric assessment at Charing Cross will only extend the delay until GRS.

2.1.5.2 Is the treatment meeting the patient’s needs?

The GRS will relieve her gender dysphoria. The patient does not want, and there is no evidence that she needs, psychiatric assessment at Charing Cross (ref Mental Capacity Act 2005).

2.1.6 View of Stakeholders:

2.1.6.1 Has appropriate clinical advice been taken?

There is no disagreement with all involved that GRS is the correct end result. The dispute has been on choice of hospital for GRS and a PCT insistence on a psychiatric assessment.

2.1.6.2 Are the patient’s requirement’s reasonable?

No party has disputed that GRS is a reasonable end result. This appeal document addresses whether the treatment path constraints the PCT has tried to impose are reasonable or even lawful.

2.1.6.3 GP approval sought.

The patient has the full support of her GP.

2.1.7 Equity:

2.1.7.1 Does the patient fit the agreed patient selection criteria e.g. NICE guidance? If not, what is the case for expanding the selection criteria?

NICE guidance is not available. Not applicable as the dispute is in respect of patient choice in the treatment pathway.

2.1.7.2 What is the priority of this in relation to potential opportunity costs? i.e. is funding the intervention reasonable in relation to the needs of the overall population?

Not applicable as the dispute is in respect of patient choice in the treatment pathway.

2.1.7.3 What precedence for funding is there?

The PCT have offered XXX a treatment path at Charing Cross hospital which includes the same surgical procedure as a treatment component.

2.1.8 Cost Effectiveness and Affordability

2.1.8.1 Are alternative treatments available?

There are no effective alternatives to GRS in relieving gender dysphoria.

2.1.8.2 Are there comparable less expensive alternative and comparable interventions available?

XXX’s efforts to get visibility or clarification for cost comparisons have not succeeded due to the PCT’s failure to disclose cost information.
The PCT are proposing a treatment path of psychiatric assessment with Charing Cross GIC prior to GRS at Charing Cross Hospital, XXX’s GP requested she have GRS with the same surgeon at Brighton Nuffield Hospital.

2.1.8.3 Is the intervention currently available under contract?

Yes, at Charing Cross Hospital but it appears that this contract requires GIC psychiatric assessment prior to surgery.

2.1.8.4 Is this good use of public funds?

This is not disputed. The dispute is in respect of the treatment path.

2.1.8.5 Can the PCT afford this treatment?

Yes, in that the PCT are insisting that XXX must undertake treatment at Charing Cross if she is to receive PCT funding.

2.1.9 Human Rights

2.1.9.1 Is there a victim?

Yes, it is claimed that XXX has been the subject of sex discrimination by the PCT – see section below.

2.1.9.2 Is the PCT pursuing a legitimate aim?

No, it is claimed that XXX has been the subject of sex discrimination by the PCT – see section below.

2.1.9.3 Is the request/decision proportionate?

No, significant PCT resources appear to have been used to try to force XXX to submit to the PCT’s preferred treatment path.

2.1.9.4 Are there relevant and sufficient reasons for the decision?

No, the arguments presented in the letter in favour of the decision are flawed, see section 2.1.

2.2 PCT Criteria for GRS

The criteria for accepting a patient referral for GRS is stated in the PCT’s Policy Statement No. 1 – Commissioning Policy and Referral Guidelines for Gender Dysphoria Services and Gender Reassignment Surgery in Adults. The relevant section is 6.3 which list the criteria for the PCT commissioning GRS. The criteria (annotated with whether criteria is met) are:

· Patient aged 18 or over;

Yes, XXX is over 18

· The patient must be registered on the list of NHS patients of a GP practise with which SSPCT holds a contract or, where the patient is not registered with a GP practise, he or she must be “usually resident” in the geographic area covered by SSPCT, except where paragraph 80 of the Department of Health guidance “Who Pays Establishing the Responsible Commissioner” (September 2007) applies

Yes, XXX is registered with Dr LLL, Northgate Surgery in Uttoxeter

· The transsexual identity must have persisted for at least two years.

Yes, XXX has proof of this is in having a gender certificate.

· The disorder must not be a symptom of any other mental disorder or chromosomal disorder

Yes, Dr RRR, a consultant psychiatrist who assessed XXX at The Balance Street Medical Centre, Uttoxeter, confirmed that XXX did not have any other mental disorder. There is no suggestion that XXX has a genetic disorder.

· Patients should complete two years’ successful continuous full-time real life experience in their chosen gender role. Periods of returning to their original gender may indicate ambivalence about proceeding and should be excluded when calculating the two year continuum.

Yes, XXX has lived exclusively as a female since she changed her name to XXX and this is proved by her gender certificate.

· Patients should have found employment, or have been in education or training, in their desired gender role for a minimum period of one year, including employment in the voluntary sector.

Yes, XXX has been continuously employed by GGG, Uttoxeter in a female role since 18 November 2005.

· Patients should have continued with an established course of hormone reassignment therapy.

Yes, XXX is continuing her hormone reassignment therapy prescribed by her GP.

· Patients should have changed their name legally to one appropriate to the transgendered self.

Yes, ‘XXX’ changed her name to XXX on dd/mm/yyyy.

· Patients should have a demonstrable knowledge of the cost, required length of hospitalisations, likely complications and post surgical rehabilitation requirements of the various surgical interventions.

Yes, XXX has shown her understanding in correspondence with the PCT and is willing to have a short ( 1 hour) assessment by a psychiatrist to confirm that she is giving informed consent to the GRS procedure.

Thus, XXX meets the PCT criteria for referral for GRS which makes the PCT decision to refer her for psychiatric assessment under a claimed standard treatment is both illogical and a misuse of clinical resources in offering unnecessary and unlawful (psychiatric) assessment or treatment.

3 The legal environment

For convenience general legal information from the legislation quoted is presented here.

3.1 Mental Capacity Act 2005

The five statutory principles are:

1. A person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that they lack capacity.
2. A person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision unless all practicable steps to help him to do so have been taken without success.
3. A person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because he makes an unwise decision.
4. An act done, or decision made, under this Act for or on behalf of a person who lacks capacity must be done, or made, in his best interests.
5. Before the act is done, or the decision is made, regard must be had to whether the purpose for which it is needed can be as effectively achieved in a way that is less restrictive of the person’s rights and freedom of action.
In particular regarding XXX, she must be assumed to have the capacity to make the decision to have GRS unless there is medical evidence that she does not [MCA 2005 Section 1 (3) below]
A lack of capacity cannot be established merely by reference to—
(a) a person’s age or appearance, or
(b) a condition of his, or an aspect of his behaviour, which might lead others to make unjustified assumptions about his capacity.

Compulsory treatment under the MHA is not an option if: the patient’s mental disorder does not justify detention in hospital, or the patient needs treatment only for a physical illness or disability MCA 2005 Section

3.2 Sex Discrimination Act 1975

A section of the notes from the “EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE SEX DISCRIMINATION (AMENDMENT OF LEGISLATION) REGULATIONS 2008” 2008 No. 963 are presented below.

(a) Section 1 SDA, (direct and indirect discrimination against women)
Schedule 1, paragraph 2 of the 2008 Regulations amends section 2A SDA (discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment) to extend protection from direct discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment in the provision of goods, facilities, services or premises.

Schedule 1, paragraph 13 of the 2008 Regulations provides how the SDA operates in relation to gender reassignment discrimination in respect of contracts entered into which relates to differences in premiums and benefits.
(a) Article 3 SDO, (direct and indirect discrimination against women)
Schedule 2, paragraph 2 of the 2008 Regulations amends Article 4A of the SDO (discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment) to extend protection from direct discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment in the provision of goods, facilities, services or premises.

Schedule 2, paragraph 13 of the 2008 Regulations provides how the SDO operates in relation to gender reassignment discrimination in respect of contracts entered into which relates to differences in premiums and benefits.

(b) Section 1(2) SDA.
Schedule 1, paragraph 1 of the 2008 Regulations applies the Directive-based definition of indirect discrimination in section 1(2) SDA to those areas of the SDA with which the Directive is concerned, namely sections 29-31, except in so far as they relate to an excluded matter.

(b) Article 3(2) of the SDO.
Schedule 2, paragraph 1 of the 2008 Regulations applies the Directive-based definition of indirect discrimination in Article 3(2) of the SDO to those areas of the SDO with which the Directive is concerned, namely Article 30-32, except in so far as they relate to an excluded matter.

3.3 R v North West Lancashire HA ex p A, D and G (1999) 53 BMLR 148, [2000] 1 WLR 977

This precedent appears relevant to XXX’s case.

The Court of Appeal said that a decision regarding the provision of treatment must be taken within a proper framework.
Although it is appropriate for a Health Authority to have a policy for establishing certain priorities in funding different treatments, in establishing priorities - comparing the respective needs of patients suffering from different illnesses and determining the respective strengths of their claims to treatment - it is vital for the Health Authority to:
· accurately assess the nature and seriousness of each type of illness
· determine the effectiveness of various forms of treatment for it, AND
· give proper effect to that assessment and that determination in the formulation and individual application of its policy

Friday, 12 September 2008

Meeting the gender duty for transsexual staff

I’ve managed to get my hands on a copy of the Equal Opportunities Commission 2007 Guidance for GB public authorities .

Don’t ask how - us gender guerrillas have our secret ways! LOL

One interesting paragraph struck me it stated:

“Individual rights under the Disability Discrimination Act must be considered where the individual has been diagnosed, as having ‘gender dysphoria’ or ‘gender identity disorder’ and the condition is likely to last more than twelve months, has lasted for more than 12 months or will remain with the individual for the rest of their life.”

Now that could have some interesting connotations for transsexual people unable to gain employment.

Otherwise it was pretty standard stuff. I was delighted to read “Many trans people consider the very term 'gender identity disorder' to be discriminatory as it suggests a mental illness, which it is not.”

The National Health Service of course ignore this in breach of their Gender Duty but then since when have the gender psychiatrists worried about operating outside the law. They should though as us gender guerrillas will hold them to account

So if you want a full copy of this confidential report just get in touch.

Here are the definitions they used in the report I think they are rather good.

Gender

Gender consists of two related aspects: gender identity, which is a person’s internal perception and experience of their gender; and gender role, which is the way that the person lives in society and interacts with others, based on their gender identity.

Gender is less clearly defined than anatomical sex, and does not necessarily represent a simple ‘one or the other’ choice. Some people have a gender identity that is neither clearly female nor clearly male. For the purpose of the law, however, people can only be male or female. The overwhelming majority of people have a gender that accords with their anatomical sex.

Gender dysphoria / gender identity disorder

Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder is the medical term for the condition with which a person who has been assigned one gender (usually at birth on the basis of their sex), but identifies as belonging to another gender, or does not conform with the gender role their respective society prescribes to them. It is a psychiatric term for what is widely termed 'transsexuality'.

Many trans people consider the very term 'gender identity disorder' to be discriminatory as it suggests a mental illness, which it is not.

Gender dysphoria is not a form of sexual deviancy or a sexual orientation.

This feeling is usually reported as "having always been there", although in some cases, it seems to appear in adolescence or even in adulthood, and it has been reported by some as intensifying over time.

Since many cultures strongly disapprove of cross-gender behaviour, it often results in significant problems for those affected, and sometimes for their close friends and family members as well. In many cases, discomfort is also reported as stemming from the feeling that one's body is "wrong" or meant to be different.

Gender presentation / gender expression

While gender identity is subjective and internal to the individual, the presentation of one's self either through personality or clothing is what is perceived by others. Typically, transsexual people seek to make their gender expression or presentation match their gender identity, rather than their birth sex.

Gender reassignment / transitioning

Altering one's birth sex is not a one-step procedure — it is a complex process that takes place over a long period of time. Gender reassignment or transition includes some or all of the following cultural, legal, and medical adjustments: telling one's family, friends, and/or co-workers; changing one's name and/or sex on legal documents; hormone therapy; and possibly (though not always) some form of chest and/or genital alteration.

Gender Recognition Certificate


A full Gender Recognition Certificate shows that a person has satisfied the criteria for legal recognition in the acquired gender.

It makes the recipient of the certificate, for all intents and purposes, the sex listed on the certificate from that moment onward, not their birth sex.

The legal basis for creating a Gender Recognition Certificate is found in the Gender Recognition Act 2004

Transgender


An umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from their birth sex. The term may include but is not limited to: transsexual people and others who define as gender-variant.

Many transgender people can identify as female-to-male (FtM) or male-to-female (MtF). Transgender people may or may not choose to alter their bodies hormonally and/or surgically.

Some people have not, and do not intend to, undergo gender reassignment, and are not covered by the gender reassignment provisions in the SDA. However, they are still protected from discrimination on the basis of their birth sex by the SDA.

This term should only be used as an adjective; individuals should be referred to as "transgender people", not "transgendereds".

Transsexual


In this guidance, this term is used to describe a person who intends to undergo, is undergoing or has in the past undergone gender reassignment (which may or may not involve hormone therapy or surgery).

Transsexual people feel the deep conviction to present themselves in the appearance of the opposite sex.

They may change their name and identity to live in the acquired gender.

Some take hormones and cosmetic treatments to alter their appearance and physical characteristics.

Some undergo surgery to change their bodies to approximate more closely to their acquired gender.

This term should only be used as an adjective; individuals should be referred to as "transsexual people", not "transsexuals".

Thursday, 11 September 2008

Oh for educatshun...

Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.
Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.
As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.
Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.

Wednesday, 10 September 2008

Maybe I am maybe I'm not…

Unsure of your gender? Not feeling you belong to either? Or let’s make it more powerful:

Unsure of your sex? But want to change to neither?

Well then there may be an option for you? Well that’s if Christie Elan-Cane is successful in her campaign and Simon Hughes MP draft legislation becomes law.

Christine nailed per colours to the mast in her speech "The Fallacy of the Myth of Gender" at the Gendys Conference, 2000. Yes that long ago but now per reappeared with a non-gender specific option.

See http://www.gender.org.uk/conf/2000/elancane.htm for the speech

and per website at http://elancane.livejournal.com/

I used “per” as not gender specific like his/her.

Having read her arguments I can easily buy the Human Rights one of choosing not to declare a gender as being as valid a Human Right as being able to chose male or female.

I’ve long argued that a simple legal declaration of permanent change should be sufficient to effect a legal change of sex.

Note I use sex not gender here as transsexual people change their sex whereas transgender people change their gender presentation on a permanent or temporary basis but keep their sex unchanged.

Of course this is where the confusion lies with the public and the medical establishment.

Being a transsexual person is a transitory thing once you have a gender recognition certificate you have legally changed sex regardless of whether you had surgical modifications.

I worry about the third option, as it requires an understanding of gender as a social construct and an acceptance that the fundamental choice of sex belongs to the individual.

I worry that whilst the mental illness qualification remains changing your sex would become harder to do when it should be made simpler.

Still despite that I support Christie in the sense I would do nothing to hinder her campaign.

I still however believe the real Human Rights abuse is the mental illness classification of anyone who temporarily or permanently changes their gender and most importantly those who permanently change their sex.

But then to misquote Mandy “she would say that wouldn’t she” LOL

Make your own mind up and support Christie if you can…

Saturday, 6 September 2008

6 to 8 tops - make my day LOL

It’s been an interesting week really though the amount of things I can reveal in this blog is still limited for legal reasons. Anyway that stuff aside I managed to get to Manchester on Tuesday and avoided the torrential downpours. God smiles on the righteous LOL

At the moment my life is full of ups & downs step forwards and step backs though I have an unexplainable faith in my future that keeps me going. I was a bit down in the dumps when I set off. Where I live is a seriously depressing place if you can see through the veneer of respectability but as soon as I got to Piccadilly the Manchester buzz hit me.

I didn’t really know before what it was but my Ex Chris described Uttoxeter as a town split by a serious lack of tolerance and that’s probably as good an explanation as any. Manchester has a lot more tolerance and that “we’re in this together lets make the best of it” attitude compared to Uttoxeter petty jealousies.

Joana and I had a good long conversation whilst she weaved her magic. Her view was that my strength is that I can talk to anyone and not care how they might perceive me because the message I give off is look this is me, this is how I am, take it or leave it and that’s very powerful. I can see prejudice and I can simply ignore it as I can’t be goaded into a reaction no matter what the provocation.

Joana and I fundamentally get on as she knows there’s not a prejudiced bone in my body and I am delighted when I see Black people storm the gates of Caucasian bigotry. That’s a woman thing as men are fundamentally elitist. Oops are my feminist tendencies showing LOL

Anyway after an enjoyable and relaxing time and with my hair looking great it was off to Primark. It must have been the last day of the school holidays as it was packed with trendy dressed 14 to 16 year olds desperately trying to look 18 to 20 but not quite pulling it off. Nice selection of boots there but I just wanted a couple of autumn weight tops. I don’t do cardigans, OK I do sweaters and hoodies but it takes a lot to get me in a cardi LOL Didn’t find anything that said buy me in a shop full of new stock.

So back to Piccadilly and coffee and muffins on the train. Quick aside here I just love Virgin pendalino trains they are just so cool. Got back dropped into Tesco and Lidl. I just love putting their stuff in free Tesco bags and yes I do recycle I use them for cat poo LOL. I missed the rain again.

Next few days rain, rain, rain still I got lots of admin cleared up and then today I went to Peacocks (again missing the rain) and had a good browse until I spotted exactly what I’d failed to find in Primark two rouched fronted mid sleeve two in one thicker material T shirt type tops. Exactly what I wanted and the size 6 to 8 fitted perfectly. Oh how I love that store size 10 jeans and size 8 tops fit me just right. Psychologically that is wonderful for someone with my background. It’s put me in a good mood and I know it’s silly as my wardrobe has sizes from 8 to 12 in it but I thought what a perfect end to a testing week and things can only get better from here…

PS

Click here for the best hairdresser in Manchester.

http://www.joanashairelite.co.uk/

Enjoy!